jd16 wrote:Didn't the staff at OC/Tapas Bar have to keep telling the mccanns to go and see their children because they were crying in their apartment all the time? I think Panda said this some time ago?

I think JT and KM have a bond as they were pregnant at almost the identical time. I am sure it was both their first child and there is about 3 weeks between the girls. From what I can gather RM's ex wife was having difficulty conceiving, then got pregnant with Sophia around the same time in 2002 as well. I always look at it as a sign of guilty conscience when RM kept saying how his daughter was so much like Maddie which is what motivated him to help as translator, even though he was police translator before in the UK. Maybe they all share something in common which brought them together in 2002 who knows

Hi jd16,

I think Gerry had been to Portugal before 2007 on a Golf trip. When asked at the Airport whether he knew Murat before the Holiday he said "no comment".....which to me means he must have known him.

I totally agree saying 'no comment' means gerry mccann knew RM from before. Nobody would be prompted to say this if they had genuinely never met the person before. Why would you. Also the Tapas 9 were 100% confident he was not going to snitch on them when they felt free to set him up for the abduction. And murat never sued any of them for their lies, nor lori campbell for slander by coming on TV and writing articles purely slandering him either. Very very suspect indeed

I totally agree saying 'no comment' means gerry mccann knew RM from before. Nobody would be prompted to say this if they had genuinely never met the person before. Why would you. Also the Tapas 9 were 100% confident he was not going to snitch on them when they felt free to set him up for the abduction. And murat never sued any of them for their lies, nor lori campbell for slander by coming on TV and writing articles purely slandering him either. Very very suspect indeed

I think maybe Murat knew he would be up against Carter Ruck and could perhaps not afford to take all of them on. He turned instead to the same method used by the McCanns , get yourself a good PR guy to advise you and make £600,000 from the Press. When you think of all the people who have made money out of Madeleine's disappearance it really is quite disgraceful.

I totally agree saying 'no comment' means gerry mccann knew RM from before. Nobody would be prompted to say this if they had genuinely never met the person before. Why would you. Also the Tapas 9 were 100% confident he was not going to snitch on them when they felt free to set him up for the abduction. And murat never sued any of them for their lies, nor lori campbell for slander by coming on TV and writing articles purely slandering him either. Very very suspect indeed

Yep. I've never gone for the innocent patsy line and all that about his life being ruined (for 600 grand?).

Personally. I have never believed in the 'minder' theory i.e. all the children in one apartment. The tapas lot seem such a selfish bunch I can't for one minute think that any of them would sacrifice a good meal and stay in and child-mind. What would the 'nanny' have for dinner, there are no reports of the staff plating up a take-away. What about when they got back, the children would wake up wouldn't they, did they all dope their offspring. It would have been bedlam with 8 children ranging in age from 20 months to nearly 4, trying to get them all to stay asleep. It would have been like minding mice at a crossroads. Where did they put them, presumably in the Payne's apartment (the largest).....lie them on beds, on the floor or what. The couples arrived at the Tapas bar in dribs and drabs, i.m.o. they aren't bright enough to stage that. The comment, I think that after the so-called abduction there was no bedding on the twins bed, was because they had already been carried to the Paynes' apartment .

(I think the 'all the children were in one apartment' from whichever Portuguese detective is a slight mistranslation......i.e. there was evidence that all the children had been in one apartment, that is for lunch at the Paynes.)

Wintabells wrote:Hi. Sorry I haven't had time to fully digest the whole thread, but something's confusing me about your first post. GMcC was seen by JW by the back gate of 5a, implying that GMcC had just come out of the back of 5a (via the patio doors) so I'm a bit confused about what you mean by 'the street side'. If he was 'checking' via the patio doors, then he would be around the 'back' of 5a (which, says JW, he was) and not the 'street side' (by which, I assume you mean the carpark side?)

Yes I realise its confusing. Looking at pictures from the tapas across to their apartment it appears to me that the patio doors are in that location, which I would call round the back, but are you saying there were stairs up to the back gate and that the back gate leads to the patio doors? Is this back gate actually on the side of the apartment? Is this where there was supposed to be a child gate? However, I am certain that Gerry said he went in by the front door. Can anyone tell me if that is correct. If so, did he go in through the front door and out via the patio windows and then through the back gate around to the street because he saw Jez? I don't know, for one small apartment there certainly seems to be plenty of doors and they made sure they used them all instead of keeping it simple.

And is this in a different location to where the front door is? Is the front door on a road or off a car park? Could a potential abductor have both doors under scrutiny at the same time? I am just trying to figure, to see the comings and goings and to know when to enter the apartment to steal a child, you would have to be located where you can see both doors.

LJC wrote:And is this in a different location to where the front door is? Is the front door on a road or off a car park? Could a potential abductor have both doors under scrutiny at the same time? I am just trying to figure, to see the comings and goings and to know when to enter the apartment to steal a child, you would have to be located where you can see both doors.

There are lots of photographs on the McCann Files and on Pamalam's site.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

LJC wrote:And is this in a different location to where the front door is? Is the front door on a road or off a car park? Could a potential abductor have both doors under scrutiny at the same time? I am just trying to figure, to see the comings and goings and to know when to enter the apartment to steal a child, you would have to be located where you can see both doors.

There are lots of photographs on the McCann Files and on Pamalam's site.

Yes, I've been looking at those but I still wonder if someone could keep you under surveilance if you went in through one door and out through another.

"When I left the street, I remember seeing Gerry on the other side of the same. I believe that there was some speculation in the press regarding the circumstances of this encounter. I remember that I crossed the street to talk to Gerry. According to what I remember, Gerry was walking when I spotted him. As I mentioned previously, I assumed that he had gone to check on the children and was headed back to the Tapas Bar."

Note the sentence that I have highlighted, as it is very important in establishing from which direction Gerry was coming. Jeremy does not say that he saw Gerry coming down the steps, he does not say that he saw Gerry walking away from him toward the front of the apartment, therefore, to have met Gerry right in front of the gate at the bottom of the stairs, Jeremy would have had to have seen Gerry walking toward him from the front of the apartment. Therefore, Gerry must have exited from the front door in this instance.

I am inclined to believe Jeremy. Reading his rogatory http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8607-statements-of-jeremy-wilkins, he is very detailed in exactly who he runs into during his hour walk with his son in the pram. His memory was much better (ie more truthful) than any of the tapas lot. If he says that Gerry was walking when he saw him then Gerry was headed down the street from the front door near the car park.

I agree with the above that Matt never stepped foot in the McCanns apartment, let alone conduct a listening check. His description of the room and what he could have or couldn't have seen is completely unbelievable. I think that initially Matt agreed to saying that he conducted a listening check outside 5A, but was convinced by Gerry to change it to an internal check as there is no way he could have not noticed the open window and shutters if he checked outside the window. Easier to claim the oversight from inside.

There is a good (old) post by Porky here: http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t14209-jes-wilkins that hypothesizes that Gerry had purposefully encountered Jeremy as an alibi, and possibly to avert him from something going on at the front of the building involving Jane Tanner. This could possibly be the case.

ann_chovey wrote: Personally. I have never believed in the 'minder' theory i.e. all the children in one apartment. The tapas lot seem such a selfish bunch I can't for one minute think that any of them would sacrifice a good meal and stay in and child-mind. What would the 'nanny' have for dinner, there are no reports of the staff plating up a take-away. What about when they got back, the children would wake up wouldn't they, did they all dope their offspring. It would have been bedlam with 8 children ranging in age from 20 months to nearly 4, trying to get them all to stay asleep. It would have been like minding mice at a crossroads. Where did they put them, presumably in the Payne's apartment (the largest).....lie them on beds, on the floor or what. The couples arrived at the Tapas bar in dribs and drabs, i.m.o. they aren't bright enough to stage that. The comment, I think that after the so-called abduction there was no bedding on the twins bed, was because they had already been carried to the Paynes' apartment .

(I think the 'all the children were in one apartment' from whichever Portuguese detective is a slight mistranslation......i.e. there was evidence that all the children had been in one apartment, that is for lunch at the Paynes.)

Rebello or whoever said this, implied it was very meaningful. Clarrie's reply is definitely about sleeping arrangements. It may have been only the McCanns who sedated their children. I certainly don't think Maddie was included in the 7 mentioned. Clarrie was very upset about the remark and gave one of his denials which tend to reveal more than they hide. He said it would be harder to get 7 children to sleep. Should have been 8.I would think the DNA evidence PJ mentioned would be from beds. There is mention of at least one meal taken out by JT to ROB I believe. There were only four nights to worry about: from Sunday to Wednesday. JD16: I think the McCanns' being told their children were crying was when they were at Chaplins - not at the Tapas and I think the daughter of Mrs. Fenn was involved.

So, what do we know about the child safety gate installed at the top of the steps which lead to the patio doors?

Was it in place on the night Madeleine vanished?

That would be a good reason for not using the patio doors. I mean, although itís a shorter and quicker way into the apartment, it meant climbing steps and hurdling or opening the child safety gate, which all sounds a bit fiddly, and coming out the same way the child gate has to be secured once more.

If the patio doors were really the agreed route in, well to anyone observing Iím thinking that unless they knew the layout of the apartment, it may not be apparent that just because people come and go up and down steps that they necessary lead into an apartment, especially if the child safety gate had been removed to make access for the adults easier.

On the other hand, if the child gate were not in place and the patio doors were really left open, that's a truth you would want to hide from people. If the patio doors were unlocked (in case of fire) but the child safety gate secured in place, the children would not be able to escape very far!

LJC wrote:So, what do we know about the child safety gate installed at the top of the steps which lead to the patio doors?

Was it in place on the night Madeleine vanished?

That would be a good reason for not using the patio doors. I mean, although itís a shorter and quicker way into the apartment, it meant climbing steps and hurdling or opening the child safety gate, which all sounds a bit fiddly, and coming out the same way the child gate has to be secured once more.

If the patio doors were really the agreed route in, well to anyone observing Iím thinking that unless they knew the layout of the apartment, it may not be apparent that just because people come and go up and down steps that they necessary lead into an apartment, especially if the child safety gate had been removed to make access for the adults easier.

On the other hand, if the child gate were not in place and the patio doors were really left open, that's a truth you would want to hide from people. If the patio doors were unlocked (in case of fire) but the child safety gate secured in place, the children would not be able to escape very far!

Something doesn't add up here.

Hi LJC, the other members of the group who had apartments with gardens from their terrace stairs, did they have a baby gate? Imo this gate with it'slower horizontal stay is a trip waiting to happen, and at the top of stone steps a very injurious trip.

Wintabells wrote:Hi. Sorry I haven't had time to fully digest the whole thread, but something's confusing me about your first post. GMcC was seen by JW by the back gate of 5a, implying that GMcC had just come out of the back of 5a (via the patio doors) so I'm a bit confused about what you mean by 'the street side'. If he was 'checking' via the patio doors, then he would be around the 'back' of 5a (which, says JW, he was) and not the 'street side' (by which, I assume you mean the carpark side?)

Yes I realise its confusing. Looking at pictures from the tapas across to their apartment it appears to me that the patio doors are in that location, which I would call round the back, but are you saying there were stairs up to the back gate and that the back gate leads to the patio doors? Is this back gate actually on the side of the apartment? Is this where there was supposed to be a child gate? However, I am certain that Gerry said he went in by the front door. Can anyone tell me if that is correct. If so, did he go in through the front door and out via the patio windows and then through the back gate around to the street because he saw Jez? I don't know, for one small apartment there certainly seems to be plenty of doors and they made sure they used them all instead of keeping it simple.

Gerry doesn't know which entrance he used. A very probable explanation is .... he didn't come into the apartment to check on Madeleine at all...my opinion is she was (sadly) dead already.

He used both entrances...It depends which day you ask him as to which answer you will get!